1995.06.24 / Atomic Rod /  Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
     
Originally-From: atomicrod@aol.com (Atomic Rod)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
Date: 24 Jun 1995 22:08:14 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Robert F. Heeter wrote:
/*
Care to enlighten me on this one?  A program which goes from 
producing 0.000001 of breakeven (to within a couple of zeros) to producing
0.3 of breakeven, in just 25 years or so, is clearly "close" and most 
certainly "has a clue".
*/
Excuse me?  You call getting to a point where the power output is 30% of
the input and you call that close?
The very first fission reactor produced more energy than needed to keep it
together just three years after the fission process was discovered and
explained.  Within fifteen years, there were power producing reactors
operating in ships at sea.
Fusion research is a giant waste of my tax dollars.
Rod Adams
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenatomicrod cudfnAtomic cudlnRod cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 24 Jun 1995 23:40:46 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

William Beaty (billb@eskimo.com) wrote:

: This may be true, but it's a bit naiive because it is usually only true in
: hindsight.  It is part of the 'rewriting of history' which all academic
: groups tend to perform to preserve their egos.  When a new theory finally
: becomes accepted, those who ridiculed and indulged in personal attacks on
: its creators prefer that everyone forget this.  And everyone does!   I
: think it is extremely unfortunate that this part of science is denied and
: kept hidden, and is excused as being part of the testing of new theories. 
: But emotional attacks, ridiculing, derision, and attempts to suppress
: unconventional works has nothing to do with testing whether a theory is
: correct or not.  Take a look at the history of QM, Relativity, Astronomy,
: Space Travel, Aerodynamics, Biology, Paleotology, etc.  There are 
: numerous examples of setbacks in progress originating with the slow (or 
: non-) acceptance of innovative ideas which threatened the status quo.

Blah blah blah.  At least you didn't mention Galileo.  Everybody
who was remotely 'scientific'ally educated at the time was convinced
right away.  Just not the Roman Catholic church--not quite known for its
enlightenment.

: Unless they are extremely conventional and represent a small addition to
: current knowledge, new theories must fight an uphill battle for
: acceptance.  

*Good new theories*, such as "QM, Relativity, Astronomy,
Space Travel, Aerodynamics, Biology, Paleotology" zoom uphill with
convincing experiments and cogent interesting ideas.

Look at, of all things, General Relativity.  It was by no stretch of
anybody's imagination anything remotely "conventional" and yet scientists
accepted it after observing the gravitational bending of starlight.

Quantum mechanics?  Utterly unconventional and seemingly absurd, yet
pounded into people's minds with experiment after experiment---hydrogen's
spectrum, photoelectric effect, black body radition spectrum, electron's
quantized spin, tunneling, et cetera et cetera.

: Sucessful theories must be easy to demonstrate.  If a new theory appears
: ridiculous in light of the conventional thinking of the time, it will be
: automatically rejected without being tested. 

As it should be if it's "ridiculous".  Scientists are quite willing to
entertain unusual theories that are interesting and which they don't
know are right or wrong....but stuff like Abian and McElwaine are truly
deserving of their ridicule. 

: If the theory is difficult
: to demonstrate, there is risk that it will be supressed for long periods
: and progress set back for decades.

There is always a competition for resources: should people allocate it
towards discovering new things in a short time which stand a reasonable
chance of being true?  

Is there an insufficiency with the current state of knowledge? 

: William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
: EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
: Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.24 / Matthew Kennel /  Re: Implications of Miles helium data
     
Originally-From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of Miles helium data
Date: 24 Jun 1995 23:28:14 GMT
Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here.

Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:

: Now after you have a perturbing potential that meets some basic requirements
: as outlined above, explain why the stuff that comes out is always 4He in its
: ground state.  What is it that inhibits all other decay processes?  I leave
: it to you to estimate what the inhibition factor likely must be, but my
: estimate is a number that is totally unknown (to me at least) in any other
: physical process know to man.  If this does occur it would seem to be truly
: remarkable.  

Quite remarkable indeed, as causality in special relativity puts a strong
limit on what possibly might affect the excited nucleus' decay.

If you can only go two atoms' distance in the standard decay time to
observable radiation, then only two atoms might possibly do something
that could affect the reaction before the free-space one would otherwise
go forward. 

I don't know what the numbers are, but it's something to keep in mind.

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmbk cudfnMatthew cudlnKennel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.25 / Bill Rowe /  Re: Last word on Griggs
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (Bill Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Last word on Griggs
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 04:37:37 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3shkfc$ekg@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
wrote:

[snip]
>
>It is nice to see that Jed has found a supporter in Archie.  My only
>problem is to whom I should send the sympathy card.
>

Since Jed hasn't commented on Archie's support I would either send to Jed
or wait awhile.
-- 
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenbrowe cudfnBill cudlnRowe cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.25 / Dr Deak /  2ND COLD FUSION PATENT?
     
Originally-From: ddeak@nyc.pipeline.com (Dr. David Deak)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 2ND COLD FUSION PATENT?
Date: 25 Jun 1995 02:58:10 -0400
Organization: The Pipeline

 
The latest issue of Infinite Energy (vol.1, No.2 1995) whose editor is Dr.
Eugene Mallove, a friend and colleague, has announced that the U.S. Patent
Office awards second cold fusion patent.  The patent is issued to MIT (of
all universities, it goes to the one that shot down the F&P lads way back
when). Even stranger, it was invented by a person that doesn't even believe
in the theory connected with his invention, for he has stated in past that
it (CF) is nothing more than latent heat of water. 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenddeak cudfnDr cudlnDeak cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.25 / Scott Little /  Potapov device test (preliminary)
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Potapov device test (preliminary)
Date: 25 Jun 1995 15:28:40 GMT
Organization: EarthTech International

Preliminary Test Results on the Potapov Device
Scott Little
H.E. Puthoff
EarthTech Int'l

Introduction

A water-heating device developed in Kishinev, Moldavia by 
Dr. Yu. S. Potapov has been reported to produce a heat 
output up to 3 times greater than the energy required to 
drive it. A Russian physicist, Lev G. Sapogin, has offered a 
theory to explain this phenomena in his paper entitled, "On 
One of Energy Generation Mechanism in Unitary Quantum 
Theory". We obtained a Potapov device and conducted a series 
of energy balance measurements on it.  No evidence of over-
unity performance was observed.

Apparatus

The device we tested is known as a YUSMAR-2 to the 
manufacturer. Apparently, these devices are enjoying some 
acceptance in Russia as building heaters and the YUSMAR-2 is 
the second in a line of four models that they make.  For 
this model, the manufacturer specifies an inlet pressure 
head of 50 meters of water (71 psi) and a flow rate range of 
12.5-23  cubic meters per hour (55-101 gpm).

The device we tested consists of a largely cylindrical 
chamber with a tangential inlet that spirals gradually into 
the cylindrical body of the chamber.  There is a main axial 
outlet that occupies most of one end of the chamber and a 
secondary, smaller axial outlet on the other end of the 
chamber.  The chamber is 2.5" in diameter and 1" high. The 
inlet port is rectangular, 1" high and 0.6"  wide.  The main 
outlet is 2" in diameter. The secondary outlet is about 3/8" 
in diameter. Outside the chamber, the inlet pipe is a cone 
which tapers from 2" pipe down to the rectangular inlet over 
a distance of 5".  The main axial outlet immediately opens 
into a 24" long section of 2" pipe.

As shown in the figure below, the device (marked with a "P") 
is mounted directly above a steel 55 gallon barrel.  The 
exit pipe from the device was extended with 2" PVC pipe and 
a "no-hub" coupling to a total length of 38" of which 
approximately 4" is below the water level. The discharge was 
placed below the water level to prevent air entrainment in 
the suction pipe.

       _ _ _
    b /       \
    y|      ___|____
    p|     |        |_________________________________
    a|     |   P     ___________discharge________      \
    s|     |_    ___|                        /           |
    s|       |  |        ___________________|_______      |
      \      |  |      /   ________suction__________|      |
       |     |  |      |  |                 |             |
       |     |  |      |  |                   \         /
    |    \ _ |  |      |  |     |                - - -
    |        |  |      |  |     |                 PUMP
    |        |  |      |  |     |
    |........|  |......|  |.....|
    |        |  |      |  |     |
    |                  |  |     |
    |                  |  |     |
    |                  |  |     |
    |                  |  |     |
    |     water        |  |     | 55 gal barrel
    |                  |  |     |
    |                  |  |     |
    |                  |  |     |
    |                  |  |     |
    |                           |
    |                           |
    |___________________________|

The small line marked "bypass" connects the secondary outlet 
to the main exit pipe.  This line appears to be an optional 
feature of the Potapov device.  In the literature 
accompanying our YUSMAR-2, the bypass line is not shown.  
However, in a photograph we obtained which shows a device 
similar in size to the YUSMAR-2, the bypass line is clearly 
present.  We conducted tests with and without this line.

The inlet of the Potapov device is connected directly to the 
discharge of a 7.5 hp centrifugal pump with a straight 1.5" 
pipe (discharge port size) 16" in length.  2" PVC piping was 
used for the suction tube.  The total lift in the suction 
line is about 22".  In  this configuration, the pump 
achieves a head pressure of about 60 psi (indicated with a 
cheap pressure gauge in the dischage line) and a flow rate 
of about 106 gpm (measured by letting the pump empty the 55 
gallon barrel and measuring the fall rate of the water 
level). 

The  electrical supply to 7.5 hp pump motor passes through a 
General Electric 3-phase watthour meter to permit 
measurement of the electrical energy consumed.  This meter 
has a K of 10.8 which means that the wheel rotates once for 
every 10.8 watt hours (38880 joules) delivered to the load.

A small immersible pump (not shown in the figure) is used 
briefly when starting the system to prime the main pump.

The barrel was wrapped with 3.5" thick R-11 insulation 
batting and is situated on the platform of a 1000 lb scale 
so the water can be weighed.

A high-accuracy glass thermometer (partial immersion type) 
with 0.1 degree Centigrade graduations is used to measure 
the temperature of the water in the barrel.

Test Procedure

The energy balance measurements were conducted by running 
the main pump for a certain period and measuring both the 
electrical energy consumed by the pump motor and the heat 
energy delivered to the water during that period.

Prior to starting the test, the 55 gallon barrel was filled 
with ordinary tap water to within about 8" of the top and 
weighed (the empty weight of the barrel is known).

Before starting the test, the main pump was operated briefly 
in order to bring the rotating wheel in the watthour meter 
around so the index mark was centered in the viewing port.

Before starting the pump, the water in the barrel was 
stirred vigorously with a large wooden paddle and a 
temperature reading was taken by immersing the glass 
thermometer to the proper depth and waiting until the 
mercury appeared to be perfectly stationary for at least 30 
seconds (i.e. had stopped moving).

To start the main pump, the small priming pump was operated 
for about 1 minute to fill the piping system and the main 
pump. Then the main pump was started and the priming pump 
stopped within a few seconds. While the main pump was 
operating, revolutions of the watthour meter wheel were 
counted.

The main pump was stopped precisely when a certain number 
of wheel rotations had been completed and the index mark 
was again centered in the viewing port on the front of the 
watthour meter.

Immediately after stopping the main pump, the water in the 
barrel was stirred with the wooden paddle and another 
temperature reading was taken in the same manner.

Results
                      Test 1     Test 2    Test 3 

starting water temp   25.60      29.60     25.95
ending water temp     29.95      33.90     27.90
water wt (lb)         366.5      366.5     341.5
wheel revolutions     100        100       40
bypass line           absent     present   present
energy input (Mj)     3.89       3.89      1.56
energy output (Mj)    3.03       2.99      1.27
* overall efficiency  0.78       0.77      0.81

(* see motor efficiency discussion below)

Air temperature in our laboratory is typically around 27 
degrees C.  In test 3, an effort was made to conduct the test 
over a temperature range that would minimize heat losses to 
the air (i.e. the water was warmed from slightly below air 
temperature to slightly above air temperature).  Presumably, 
this is why the efficiency in test 3 is a few points higher 
than in test 1 and test 2.

Test 2 was conducted about 1 hour after test 1, using the 
same water. Note that the water temperature fell only 0.35 
degrees during that hour.  

The pump run in Test 2 was timed at 727 seconds.  This time 
allows the calculation of the average power consumption of 
the pump motor: 5.35 kW.  The motor manufacturer provided a 
load curve for this motor which indicates that under this 
loading the motor should be 85% efficient (the efficiency vs 
load curve is very flat in this loading region).

Error Discussion

The errors associated with each of the critical measurements 
have been estimated as follows:

delta-T           0.05 degree C  (2.5% relative in test 3)          
water weight      2 lbs          (about .5% relative)
watthours         .5% relative

These errors are independent and would thus combine to 
produce an overall expected error of about 2.6% relative.

Conclusions

The Potapov device we tested did not show any evidence of 
over-unity performance in our tests.  The observed efficiency 
is 4-8% lower than the rated motor efficiency.  This 
difference is significant and is probably due to heat losses 
to the air and to the body of the pump, which were not 
measured in these tests.

Our test conditions closely matched the manufacturer's 
recommended operating conditions for the YUSMAR-2.  Our head 
pressure was about 60 psi instead of the recommended 71 psi 
but our 106 gpm flow rate was at the high end of the 
recommended range (55-101 gpm).  It therefore does not seem 
likely that we were "underfeeding" the device.

We can find no explanation for the failure of this Potapov
device to perform as reported (300% over-unity).  It is 
possible that we have failed to meet some operating condition
that is critical for the over-unity performance.  We will be
exploring other operating conditions in the future and we
welcome any suggestions for further testing. 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.25 / Scott Little /  Potapov device test discussion
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Potapov device test discussion
Date: 25 Jun 1995 15:30:05 GMT
Organization: EarthTech International


OK SPFers, here's your chance to interact with the testing
of the Potapov device. I posted the preliminary report
(after only three tests) mainly to give y'all a chance to
get involved. I'm definitely not finished testing this
thing.

Tom, hold on the $700 until the group decides I've earned it.

Feel free to post questions about any aspect of the tests I
have done.  I will endeavor to answer all inquiries.

Feel free to propose alternative test procedures (especially
ones that might dramatically alter the results!).  If
practical, I will make the suggested modifications, conduct
the new tests and publish additional reports.



Permission is hereby granted to reproduce our Potapov test
report(s) freely.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.25 / Scott Little /  Potapov device test posting problems
     
Originally-From: little@eden.com (Scott Little)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Potapov device test posting problems
Date: 25 Jun 1995 15:33:05 GMT
Organization: EarthTech International

I apologize if three copies of my preliminary report eventually
show up on spf.  I first posted the report the afternoon of the 22nd.
I tried again on the morning of the 24th, when it became apparent
that my first post didn't go out.  This time (morning of the 25th)
I'm using another Internet provider (Univ. of Texas).
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenlittle cudfnScott cudlnLittle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.25 / Alan M /  Re: Potapov device test (preliminary)
     
Originally-From: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potapov device test (preliminary)
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 20:24:27
Organization: Home

Thank, Scott. Please keep us all fed with updates.

-- 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.25 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.physics,sci.environment,sc
.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
Date: 25 Jun 1995 23:48:09 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Archive-name: fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
Last-modified: 26-Feb-1995
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-biweekly
Disclaimer:  While this section is still evolving, it should 
     be useful to many people, and I encourage you to distribute 
     it to anyone who might be interested (and willing to help!!!).

 ----------------------------------------------------------------
### Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Fusion Research
 ----------------------------------------------------------------

# Written/Edited by:

     Robert F. Heeter
     <rfheeter@pppl.gov>
     Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

# Last Revised February 26, 1995


 ----------------------------------------------------------------
*** A.  Welcome to the Conventional Fusion FAQ!  
 ----------------------------------------------------------------

* 1) Contents

  This file is intended to indicate 
     (A) that the Conventional Fusion FAQ exists, 
     (B) what it discusses, 
     (C) how to find it on the Internet, and
     (D) the status of the Fusion FAQ project


* 2) What is the Conventional Fusion FAQ?

  The Conventional Fusion FAQ is a comprehensive, relatively
  nontechnical set of answers to many of the frequently asked
  questions about fusion science, fusion energy, and fusion
  research.  Additionally, there is a Glossary of Frequently
  Used Terms In Plasma Physics and Fusion Energy Research, which 
  explains much of the jargon of the field.  The Conventional 
  Fusion FAQ originated as an attempt to provide 
  answers to many of the typical, basic, or introductory questions 
  about fusion research, and to provide a listing of references and 
  other resources for those interested in learning more.  The
  Glossary section containing Frequently Used Terms (FUT) also
  seeks to facilitate communication regarding fusion by providing
  brief explanations of the language of the field.


* 3) Scope of the Conventional Fusion FAQ:

  Note that this FAQ discusses only the conventional forms of fusion
  (primarily magnetic confinement, but also inertial and 
  muon-catalyzed), and not new/unconventional forms ("cold fusion",
  sonoluminescence-induced fusion, or ball-lightning fusion).  I 
  have tried to make this FAQ as uncontroversial and comprehensive
  as possible, while still covering everything I felt was 
  important / standard fare on the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup.


* 4) How to Use the FAQ:

  This is a rather large FAQ, and to make it easier to find what
  you want, I have outlined each section (including which questions
  are answered) in Section 0, Part 2 (posted separately).  Hopefully it 
  will not be too hard to use.  Part (C) below describes how to find
  the other parts of the FAQ via FTP or the World-Wide Web.


* 5) Claims and Disclaimers:  

  This is an evolving document, not a completed work.  As such, 
  it may not be correct or up-to-date in all respects.  
  This document should not be distributed for profit, especially 
  without my permission.  Individual sections may have additional 
  restrictions.  In no case should my name, the revision date, 
  or this paragraph be removed.  
                                             - Robert F. Heeter


 -------------------------------------------------------------------
*** B. Contents (Section Listing) of the Conventional Fusion FAQ
 -------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************************************************************
                What This FAQ Discusses
*****************************************************************

(Each of these sections is posted periodically on sci.physics.fusion.
 Section 0.1 is posted biweekly, the other parts are posted quarterly.
 Each listed part is posted as a separate file.)

Section 0 - Introduction
     Part 1/3 - Title Page
                Table of Contents
                How to Find the FAQ
                Current Status of the FAQ project
     Part 2/3 - Detailed Outline with List of Questions
     Part 3/3 - Revision History

Section 1 - Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon

Section 2 - Fusion as an Energy Source
     Part 1/5 - Technical Characteristics
     Part 2/5 - Environmental Characteristics
     Part 3/5 - Safety Characteristics
     Part 4/5 - Economic Characteristics
     Part 5/5 - Fusion for Space-Based Power

Section 3 - Fusion as a Scientific Research Program
     Part 1/3 - Chronology of Events and Ideas
     Part 2/3 - Major Institutes and Policy Actors
     Part 3/3 - History of Achievements and Funding

Section 4 - Methods of Containment / Approaches to Fusion
     Part 1/2 - Toroidal Magnetic Confinement Approaches
     Part 2/2 - Other Approaches (ICF, muon-catalyzed, etc.)

Section 5 - Status of and Plans for Present Devices

Section 6 - Recent Results

Section 7 - Educational Opportunities

Section 8 - Internet Resources

Section 9 - Future Plans

Section 10 - Annotated Bibliography / Reading List

Section 11 - Citations and Acknowledgements

Glossary of Frequently Used Terms (FUT) in Plasma Physics & Fusion:
  Part 0/26 - Intro
  Part 1/26 - A
  Part 2/26 - B
  [ ... ]
  Part 26/26 - Z


 --------------------------------------------------------------
*** C.  How to find the Conventional Fusion FAQ on the 'Net:
 --------------------------------------------------------------

*****************************************************************
###  The FAQ about the FAQ:
###          How can I obtain a copy of a part of the Fusion FAQ?
*****************************************************************

* 0) Quick Methods (for Experienced Net Users)

   (A) World-Wide Web:  http://lyman.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/fusion-faq.html

   (B) FTP:  rtfm.mit.edu in /pub/usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq


* 1) Obtaining the Fusion FAQ from Newsgroups

  Those of you reading this on news.answers, sci.answers, 
  sci.energy, sci.physics, or sci.environment will be able to 
  find the numerous sections of the full FAQ by reading 
  sci.physics.fusion periodically.  (Please note that not 
  all sections are completed yet.)  Because the FAQ is quite
  large, most sections are posted only every three months, to avoid
  unnecessary consumption of bandwidth.

  All sections of the FAQ which are ready for "official" 
  distribution are posted to sci.physics.fusion, sci.answers, 
  and news.answers, so you can get them from these groups by 
  waiting long enough. 


* 2) World-Wide-Web (Mosaic, Netscape, Lynx, etc.):

   Several Web versions now exist.

   The "official" one is currently at

     <URL:http://lyman.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/fusion-faq.html>

   We hope to have a version on the actual PPPL Web server 
      (<URL:http://www.pppl.gov/>) soon.

   There are other sites which have made "unofficial" Web versions 
   from the newsgroup postings.  I haven't hunted all of these down 
   yet, but I know a major one is at this address:

 <URL:http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/fusion-faq/top.html>

 Note that the "official" one will include a number of features
 which cannot be found on the "unofficial" ones created by
 automated software from the newsgroup postings.  In particular
 we hope to have links through the outline directly to questions,
 and between vocabulary words and their entries in the Glossary, 
 so that readers unfamiliar with the terminology can get help fast.

 (Special acknowledgements to John Wright at PPPL, who is handling
  much of the WWW development.)


* 3) FAQ Archives at FTP Sites (Anonymous FTP) - Intro

  All completed sections can also be obtained by anonymous FTP 
  from various FAQ archive sites, such as rtfm.mit.edu.  The
  address for this archive is:

    <ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq>

  Please note that sections which are listed above as having
  multiple parts (such as the glossary, and section 2) are 
  stored in subdirectories, where each part has its own
  filename; e.g., /fusion-faq/glossary/part0-intro. 

  Please note also that there are other locations in the rtfm
  filespace where fusion FAQ files are stored, but the reference
  given above is the easiest to use.

  There are a large number of additional FAQ archive sites,
  many of which carry the fusion FAQ.  These are listed below.


* 4) Additional FAQ archives worldwide (partial list)

  There are other FAQ archive sites around the world
  which one can try if rtfm is busy; a list is appended
  at the bottom of this file.


* 5) Mail Server

   If you do not have direct access by WWW or FTP, the 
   rtfm.mit.edu site supports "ftp by mail": send a message 
   to mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu with the following 3 lines
   in it (cut-and-paste if you like): 

send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part2-outline
quit

   The mail server will send these two introductory 
   files to you.  You can then use the outline (part2)
   to determine which files you want.  You can receive
   any or all of the remaining files by sending another
   message with the same general format, if you substitute
   the file archive names you wish to receive, in place of the 
   part "fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview", etc. used above.


* 6) Additional Note / Disclaimer: 

  Not all sections of the FAQ have been written
  yet, nor have they all been "officially" posted.

  Thus, you may not find what you're looking for right away.

  Sections which are still being drafted are only
  posted to sci.physics.fusion.  If there's a section 
  you can't find, send me email and I'll let you know 
  what's up with it. 


 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
*** D. Status of the Conventional Fusion FAQ Project
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

* 1) Written FAQ Sections:

  Most sections have been at least drafted, but many sections are still
  being written.  Sections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, and 9
  remain to be completed.

  Those sections which have been written could use revising and improving.
  I am trying to obtain more information, especially on devices and 
  confinement approaches; I'm also looking for more information on 
  international fusion research, especially in Japan & Russia.

   *** I'd love any help you might be able to provide!! ***


* 2) Building a Web Version
                
  A "primitive" version (which has all the posted data, but isn't
  especially aesthetic) exists now.  Would like to add graphics and 
  cross-references to the Glossary, between FAQ sections, and 
  to other internet resources (like laboratory Web pages).  
 

* 3) Nuts & Bolts - 

  I'm looking for ways to enhance the distribution of the FAQ, and
  to get additional volunteer help for maintenance and updates.
  We are in the process of switching to automated posting via the 
  rtfm.mit.edu faq posting daemon.


* 4) Status of the Glossary:

 # Contains roughly 1000 entries, including acronyms, math terms, jargon, etc.

 # Just finished incorporating terms from the "Glossary of Fusion Energy"
   published in 1985 by the Dept. of Energy's Office of Scientific and
   Technical Information.

 # Also working to improve technical quality of entries (more formal.)

 # World Wide Web version exists, hope to cross-reference to FAQ.

 # Hope to have the Glossary "officially" added to PPPL Web pages.

 # Hope to distribute to students, policymakers, journalists, 
   scientists, i.e., to anyone who needs a quick reference to figure out 
   what we're really trying to say, or to decipher all the "alphabet 
   soup."  Scientists need to remember that not everyone knows those 
   "trivial" words we use every day.  The glossary and FAQ should be 
   useful in preparing for talks to lay audiences.  Students will 
   also find it useful to be able to look up unfamiliar technical jargon.


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
*** E. Appendix: List of Additional FAQ Archive Sites Worldwide 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

(The following information was excerpted from the "Introduction to 
the *.answers newsgroups" posting on news.answers, from Sept. 9, 1994.)

Other news.answers/FAQ archives (which carry some or all of the FAQs
in the rtfm.mit.edu archive), sorted by country, are:

[ Note that the connection type is on the left.  I can't vouch
for the fusion FAQ being on all of these, but it should be
on some. - Bob Heeter ]


Belgium
-------

  gopher                cc1.kuleuven.ac.be port 70
  anonymous FTP         cc1.kuleuven.ac.be:/anonymous.202
  mail-server           listserv@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be  get avail faqs

Canada
------

  gopher                jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca port 70

Finland
-------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.funet.fi/pub/doc/rtfm

France
------

  anonymous FTP         grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq
                        grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq-by-newsgroup
  gopher                gopher.insa-lyon.fr, port 70
  mail server           listserver@grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr
  
Germany
-------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.Germany.EU.net:/pub/newsarchive/news.answers
                        ftp.informatik.uni-muenchen.de:/pub/comp/usenet/news.answers
                        ftp.uni-paderborn.de:/doc/FAQ
                        ftp.saar.de:/pub/usenet/news.answers (local access only)
  gopher                gopher.Germany.EU.net, port 70.
                        gopher.uni-paderborn.de
  mail server           archive-server@Germany.EU.net
                        ftp-mailer@informatik.tu-muenchen.de
                        ftp-mail@uni-paderborn.de
  World Wide Web        http://www.Germany.EU.net:80/
  FSP                   ftp.Germany.EU.net, port 2001
  gopher index          gopher://gopher.Germany.EU.net:70/1.archive
                        gopher://gopher.uni-paderborn.de:70/0/Service/FTP

Korea
-----

  anonymous ftp         hwarang.postech.ac.kr:/pub/usenet/news.answers

Mexico
------
  anonymous ftp         mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx:/pub/usenet/news.answers

The Netherlands
---------------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.cs.ruu.nl:/pub/NEWS.ANSWERS
  gopher                gopher.win.tue.nl, port 70
  mail server           mail-server@cs.ruu.nl

Sweden
------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.sunet.se:/pub/usenet

Switzerland
-----------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.switch.ch:/info_service/usenet/periodic-postings
  anonymous UUCP        chx400:ftp/info_service/Usenet/periodic-postings
  mail server           archiver-server@nic.switch.ch
  telnet                nic.switch.ch, log in as "info"

Taiwan
------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.edu.tw:/USENET/FAQ
  mail server           ftpmail@ftp.edu.tw

United Kingdon
--------------

  anonymous ftp         src.doc.ic.ac.uk:/usenet/news-faqs/
  FSP                   src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 21
  gopher                src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 70.
  mail server           ftpmail@doc.ic.ac.uk
  telnet                src.doc.ic.ac.uk login as sources
  World Wide Web        http://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/news-faqs/

United States
-------------

  anonymous ftp         ftp.uu.net:/usenet
  World Wide Web        http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/top.html



cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.25 /  matt@godzilla. /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 25 Jun 1995 19:45:00 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley

In article <kovskyDAp6px.Cqw@netcom.com> kovsky@netcom.com (Bob Kovsky) writes:

> 	The history of quantum mechanics was, as you indicate, much more 
> convoluted.  Parts of it (e.g. the collapse of the wave function) are 
> still controversial.  It took a long time to develop and there was lots 
> of opposition.  One great name in physics, Lienard, was denouncing 
> quantum mechanics in the 1930's (Lienard was, to put it bluntly, a Nazi, 
> who joined in the denunciation of quantum mechanics as "Jewish physics.")
> It took at least 30 years for quantum mechanics to become accepted, after 
> Planck's original 1900 paper.

This is true in a sense, but it's also grossly misleading.  Quantum
mechanics wasn't accepted in the first decade of the 20th century
because quantum mechanics, in the modern sense, didn't exist in the
first decade of the 20th century.  That's why I didn't want to get
into the history of quantum mechanics: it's complicated, and there's
no clear instant when you can say that quantum mechanics was born.
(No pun intended.)  It evolved slowly as people understood more clearly
what was going on, and people's opinions of the theories changed as 
the theories themselves changed.  At each stage in the development
of quantum theory, it got just about the degree of acceptance that 
it deserves.

Very roughly, you can divide the history of quantum mechanics into
three phases.  First, a handful of ad hoc phenomenological relations
to solve one problem or another: Plank's empirical formula (1900) for
black body radiation, Einstein's work on the photoelectric effect
(1905), de Broglie's wave-particle duality, and so on.  These were
active research projects, and physicists had a general sort of
intuition that they were related somehow, but there was no coherent
theory.  [As an aside, that's more or less the state of the art today
in string theory.]

Second, the Old Quantum Theory.  This began with Bohr's guess about
atomic structure (1913), was quickly generalized by Sommerfeld to the
case of elliptical orbits, and, soon after, it was realized that these
were all consequences of the assumption that the action is quantized
in units of hbar.  (In retrospect, we can now see that the Old Quantum
Theory is basically the WKB approximation.)  This was the first time
when there really was any sort of coherent theory of quantum mechanics.

Third, quantum theory in today's sense.  This was developed in the mid
1920s: Heisenberg developed "matrix mechanics" and Schroedinger
developed "wave mechanics", and later Dirac showed that the two
theories were equivalent and put both of them on a firmer theoretical
foundation.

For about the first 15 years of this century, then, the physics
community realized that there was something important going on but, in
the absence of any coherent theory, wasn't clear exactly what it all
meant.  In the middle of the second decade a coherent theory 
did emerge and it was used as the basis for designing experiments,
was adopted by other fields of science, and even made it into such
stodgy publications as encyclopedias.  That's also when the first 
Nobel Prizes for quantum mechanics began getting awarded.

There was certainly a revolution in the first 25 years of this
century, especially from about 1910 to 1925.  (The dates are
quite sharp.  I've looked hard for mentions of quantum mechanics in
the 11th edition Britannica, and I've found nothing but a word or two
buried in a footnote.  In the 13th edition, though, you can't read
anything about physics without finding quantum mechanics everywhere.)
By and large, though, it's not a revolution that was resisted by the
physics community.  There really are obvious differences between how
revolutionary theories are received and how crackpots are received.

I have a copy of the 13th edition Britannica, published in 1926.
There's an article in it on "Quantum Theory" (meaning the Old Quantum
Theory---there's just one brief mention of Heisenberg, and nothing
about Schroedinger or Dirac).  The general tone of the article is that the
theoretical foundations of quantum theory were in a state of some
confusion but that there was no doubt that quantum mechanics was true
in some sense.  It makes no mention of any controversy about whether
quantum mechanics was true, and ends "The atom is certainly a
quantum-atom; its internal structure and processes are governed by
quantum-laws.  For the present we can only accept these as empirical
facts."
--
Matt Austern				      matt@physics.berkeley.edu
http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmatt cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.25 / C Cagle /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 13:01:33 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

In article <MATT.95Jun24134840@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU>,
matt@physics.berkeley.edu wrote:

<snip> of relativity related historical events..
> 
> What I see, then, is that relativity became an active research topic
> almost immediately, although in the first two or three years only a
> relatively small number of people were working on it.  Within five 
> years, though, special relativity was widely accepted by physicists
> and Einstein began to receive extraordinary honors.  (Most of 
> this information comes from _"Subtle is the Lord"_, by Abraham Pais.
> It's the best biography of Einstein ever written.)
> 
> Nothing could be further from the truth than to say that relativity
> was slowly and reluctantly accepted.
> --
> Matt Austern                                  matt@physics.berkeley.edu
> http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt

Matt you are so expert at building straw men that you ought to go into the
doll making business.  Maybe it all phased through in a few short years
because it came upon some ground wherein nothing else was growing.  Where
there are long established theories the going is far tougher.  And don't
spring back with the idea that Newtonian physics was already growing in
that spot.  Calculations associated with newtonian physics still dominates
the real world from moon shots to firing data on battle ships.  And don't
forget that Einstein himself was perhaps a bit regretful of certain
concepts that later became a dogma.

Regards,

-- 
C. Cagle
CTO
Singularity Technologies, Inc.
singtech@teleport.com

"It is dangerous to be right in
 matters on which the established
 authorities are wrong."

Voltaire
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudensingtech cudfnC cudlnCagle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.25 / C Cagle /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 13:06:48 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

Well said, Bob.

Maybe Beaty should read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by
Thomas Kuhn.

-- 
C. Cagle
CTO
Singularity Technologies, Inc.
singtech@teleport.com

"It is dangerous to be right in
 matters on which the established
 authorities are wrong."

Voltaire
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudensingtech cudfnC cudlnCagle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.25 / C Cagle /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 13:14:03 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

In article <3si7pu$clg@martha.utk.edu>, mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matthew
Kennel) wrote:

> Is there an insufficiency with the current state of knowledge? 

That question there says it all.  

To even ask it automatically identifies you not as part of the solution,
but as part of the problem.

-- 
C. Cagle
CTO
Singularity Technologies, Inc.
singtech@teleport.com

"It is dangerous to be right in
 matters on which the established
 authorities are wrong."

Voltaire
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudensingtech cudfnC cudlnCagle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.25 / C Cagle /  Re: Cold Fusion???
     
Originally-From: singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion???
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 13:21:31 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

In article <21cenlogic-2406951508080001@austin-1-2.i-link.net>,
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:

<snip>

> they have flushed 40 years and roughly $100
> billion (looted from taxpayers, of course!) down an apparently bottomless
> rathole, without a scintilla of success. My own opinion, for what it's
> worth, is that this dog won't hunt. 
> 
> --Mitchell Jones
> 
> ===========================================================

Are you serious, Mitchell?  Has it been that much?  Do you have some
figures?  I was thinking it was more like $15 Billion or so.  I would love
some documentation of this.  Don't get me wrong...I'm not really doubting
you (oh, maybe just a little...through unbelief) but I really am
interested in the truth of the matter.  So what I'm saying is that it
astounds me that it has been that much.  If so, it has to stop
immediately.

Best Regards,

-- 
C. Cagle
CTO
Singularity Technologies, Inc.
singtech@teleport.com

"It is dangerous to be right in
 matters on which the established
 authorities are wrong."

Voltaire
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudensingtech cudfnC cudlnCagle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.25 / C Cagle /  Re: Same old same old...
     
Originally-From: singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Same old same old...
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 13:32:37 -0800
Organization: Singularity Technologies, Inc.

In article <3sb0u4$grq@huxley.anu.edu.au>, drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David
R Davies) wrote:

> Horacio Gasquet <gasquet@fusion.ph.utexas.edu> writes:
> ...
> >The only good science is to assume it is wrong until proven right.
> ...
> I dont see science in such monochrome terms and I dont think most
> other people do either. Most results, both experimental and theoretical
> are probationary to some extent. 
> 
> If something is unproven then it is just that - to some degree. This is
> not the same as saying it has been disproven - again to some degree.
> 
> If you cant cope with shades of (un)certainty then at least accept that
> many others not only can, but see it as the essence of vitality for an
> evolving science.
> 
> Loosen up,
> 
> dave

What remarkable insight.  This is the true spirit of scientific inquery! 

The naysayers who subscribe to this newsgroup should wake up and realize
that what we think we know about physics will be looked upon with mild
amusement at some future date.

Good job Dave.

Best Regards,

-- 
C. Cagle
CTO
Singularity Technologies, Inc.
singtech@teleport.com

"It is dangerous to be right in
 matters on which the established
 authorities are wrong."

Voltaire
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudensingtech cudfnC cudlnCagle cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.25 / Frank Manning /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: frank@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (Frank Manning)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 25 Jun 1995 22:19:30 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering and Mines, University of Arizona

In article <DAosCE.Enp@eskimo.com> billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty) writes:

>    [...]
> Unless they are extremely conventional and represent a small addition to
> current knowledge, new theories must fight an uphill battle for
> acceptance.  Their proposers risk their positions by sticking by their
> guns.  Their papers will be attacked emotionally in peer review and their
> funding put at risk.  
>    [...]

I violently agree. To examples in other posts, let me add these --

When William Harvey discovered the circulation of blood, the prevailing
orthodoxy was that blood ebbed and flowed rather than circulated. It was
also felt there were two types of blood, and that blood was able to flow
from one side of the heart to the other.

Harvey greatly feared that his theory of blood circulation would attract
ridicule and abuse. His fears were well founded, and his career suffered
for it.

In 1845, J.J. Waterston wrote a visionary paper on the molecular theory
of gases, a theory later worked out by Joule, Clausius and Maxwell. When
Waterston submitted his paper to the Royal Society, the referee pronounced
it nothing but nonsense. The work lay in oblivion for forty-five years. A
few years after writing the paper, a discouraged Waterston disappeared
without a trace.

In 1847, Ignaz Semmelweis got the idea that the washing of hands in a
solution of chlorinated lime would cut down on diseases spread by medical
teachers and students in hospitals. After the change in procedure,
fatalities from puerperal fever in one Vienna hospital fell from 12% to 1%.
Even so, his theory aroused fierce opposition from entrenched authority,
and his career suffered badly.

-- Frank Manning

Reference:
Beveridge, W.I.B. _The Art of Scientific Investigation_, Random House, 1957.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenfrank cudfnFrank cudlnManning cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.25 / Richard Schultz /  Re: comments on the Cravens demo
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: comments on the Cravens demo
Date: 25 Jun 1995 22:28:29 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <DAn3xx.LEn@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>   There were eight or so questions there, and all
>unanswered before your question.
>Are you man enough to answer and respond?
>  Probably not.   {thanks in advance if you do.}

If you are going to play this game, which in my opinion is rather 
childish, perhaps you will not take it amiss if I remind you that 
I have been waiting for an answer from you about what experience you
have with programming of science conferences for months now.
--
					Richard Schultz

"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean.  Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.25 /   /  Re: Where's the CNF water heater Heeter?
     
Originally-From: mrichar353@aol.com (MRichar353)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Where's the CNF water heater Heeter?
Date: 25 Jun 1995 20:55:21 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

  Hey, birdbrain, CF experiments are "top secret" classified material
in some parts of the world. 

[snip]

As I said so many times before, CF will not
become a science until we can get some accurate hadron count before and
after. That requires equipment beyond Pons and Fleischmann and all of
these garage and Univ flybynight labs.

=================================================

Ah, so that's the problem. The scientists who found no evidence for CF
were just amateurs and the real research is going on in secret labs, which
are much better than the "flybynight" university labs. Perhaps they have
dinky labs at Dartmouth (I wouldn't know), but that is not the case for
the major research universities as well as for the national labs operated
by these universities. Such a lot of BS.

Also, I just can't stand this "accurate hadron count" bit anymore. Sounds
rather scientific, very impressive. Please tell me how you would
accurately count the hadrons (about 10^24 or so) in the samples? Puleese!

Mark Richardson
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmrichar353 cudln cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / mitchell swartz /  Re: comments on the Cravens device
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: comments on the Cravens device
Subject: Re: comments on the Cravens demo
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 00:56:24 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3sknud$q1c@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: comments on the Cravens demo
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:

"If you are going to play this game, which in my opinion [zip]"
					Richard Schultz"

  It is quite apparent you have problems, Mr. Schultz.

  ==========================================

"I think you're thinking of Wyoming, where the men are men, 
the women are men, and the sheep are scared."
[Richard Schultz, 22 Jun 1995; 
          <3scoir$m73@agate.berkeley.edu>]





cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / mitchell swartz /  cancel <DAr9A0.us@world.std.com>
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <DAr9A0.us@world.std.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 01:06:17 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

cancel <DAr9A0.us@world.std.com> in newsgroup sci.physics.fusion
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / mitchell swartz /  Re: comments on the Cravens demo
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: comments on the Cravens demo
Subject: Re: comments on the Cravens demo
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 01:09:59 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3sknud$q1c@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: comments on the Cravens demo
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:

"If you are going to play this game, which in my opinion [zip]"
					Richard Schultz"

  It is becoming quite apparent that you have problems,
 Mr. Schultz.

  ==========================================

"I think you're thinking of Wyoming, where the men are men, 
the women are men, and the sheep are scared."
[Richard Schultz, 22 Jun 1995; 
          <3scoir$m73@agate.berkeley.edu>]





cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / David Davies /  A ZPF Primer
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A ZPF Primer
Date: 26 Jun 1995 14:41:03 +1000
Organization: Australian National University


Richard Schultz writes:

        In article <3sb8jp$l2c@huxley.anu.edu.au>,
        David R Davies <drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au> wrote:
        
        >Woooa! It is possible to be extremely offensive without frothing
        >at the mouth - particularly if you are running with the pack.
        
        For example, when someone who doesn't know what he's talking about
        says "put up or shut up," and then when the person to whom he addressed
        the remark "puts up," doesn't even have the grace to admit that he
        was wrong?
        --
                                                Richard Schultz
...

I thought the ZPE stream was well summed up by Bill Page. I was suggesting
that someone directly address Puthoff's article. I haven't seen anything from
you that suggests that you have even read it. I don't feel much inclined to
debate spurious quotes from text books. (but what the heck)

Schultz in another post writes: 
...
        (1) Every physical system is completely described by a wavefunction 
        Psi(q,t), where q are the coordinates that define the system; Psi and
        its first derivatives are finite, continuous, and single-valued, except
        that the derivative may be discontinuous at an infintely high potential 
        barrier.
...

The first line is, of course, pure speculation. The last is totally un-physical.
Here we have a mathematical system being shoe-horned into a physical context 
with very dubious logic. The fact that it has been outstandingly successfull in 
calculating the stable states of the hydrogen atom and many other physical 
problems doesn't make it a complete description.

dave

It is not clear thet you have the slightest idea
of what the issue is here.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Paul Koloc /  Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 04:57:52 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3scaml$j59@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>Although the original post here focused on the cuts to specific 
>parts of the fusion-energy budget, the pattern noted (funding DOE 
>national labs at the expense of more cost-effective university 
>research groups) is common to other changes proposed by the budget 
>committee.  For example, they plan to eliminate all 5 university 
>nuclear physics labs (including the international user facility 
>at the MIT Bates electron accelerator).  Thus there appear to be 
>wider issues than just the fusion program involved here, and it is 
>not a matter of making decisions based on value -vs- cost after a 
>review of the various programs.  

It seems to me that the DoE for what ever reason, has found its way
into a number of peripheral areas that are no longer essential to its
original mission, which itself has been well accomplished.    
My understanding was that they were even going to be competing with 
NASA on propulsion research, and not just in the area of fission driven
devices.  


>In article <DAEnn9.Fps@prometheus.UUCP> 
>pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>>
>>It's just that the books have to be balanced, Bob.  You and your
>>lofty buddies have been soaring on borrowed Japanese money, and the
>>plug is being pulled.  The value of the dollar is in the dumpster.  

>Fair point, but that begs the question of what expenditures were 
>the cause of the unbalanced budget.  The part of the federal budget 
>for research as a % of GDP has remained small and fairly constant 
>over many decades.  It is not much different from years when the 
>budget was in balance.  If it you believe the reason for cutting 
>the budget is to punish a profligate past, the cuts should reflect 
>that past.  What is actually happening, across the board cuts, 
>suggests that the national value placed on research (in general, 
>also reflected in tax code changes that affect the private sector) 
>has fallen significantly in the past 40 years. 

Well, Jim, with the rising debt and interest payments, GDP becomes 
a less defensible comparison.  

>Actually, there are three major ones and a few other smaller ones. 
>NIH is huge and growing.  The reduction in physical science research 
>over the past 20 years has reflected a change in priorities, not a 
>reduction in overall science spending.  This is changing now. 

Looks like berserker Congressional sessions will be coming up.  

>>Naturally, one doesn't want an engineering agency doing "science" right?

>NSF funds engineering, not DOE.  ;-) 

>DOE, as I am sure you know, was cobbled together from entities that 
>did science, ones that did engineering, and ones that manufacture 
>and maintain the nuclear stockpile.  Disassembling it would not be 
>so bad if the science money went to NSF (although having different 
>sets of contract monitors does seem to have its advantages at times, 
>which is why there is biology in NSF as well as NIH).  But the money 
>is not going to the NSF, it is going to the big multipurpose labs. 

Are we talking about Midway Labs ???      :-)

It appears to me there will be a vigorous Defense R&D, and otherwise
zip as far as the labs are concerned, unless they may be required to 
privatize a good chunk of their operations.  

>That is not so clear as you seem to think.  The shift in priorities 
>from university programs to large labs is good? 

I Think some kind of a rolling bevy of small programs for universities 
is fine, and defense programs at fewer national labs, and a huge 
increase in research and development funded at and by tax relief for 
corporations in the form of long term indexed investment oriented 
capital gains features, to build this R&D Private Industry Engine.  
>-- 
> James A. Carr   <carr@scri.fsu.edu>    |  "My pet light bulb is a year old  
>    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  today.  That is 5.9 trillion miles 
> Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  in light years.  Your mileage may 
> Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  vary."   -- Heywood Banks 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Cold Fusion???
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion???
Date: 26 Jun 1995 05:56:55 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <21cenlogic-2406951508080001@austin-1-2.i-link.net>  
21cenlogic@i-link.net (Mitchell Jones) writes:
> In article <DAJxKw.IKs@crash.cts.com>, bigphil@cts.com (Phil Palisoul II)  
wrote:
> 
> > after taking a high school chemistry class, i was told that ...
> > phil, san diego
> > bigphil@cts.com
> 
> Phil, two comments:
> 
> (3) ... the proponents of "hot fusion"--i.e., the essentially goofy notion of
> controlling a thermonuclear explosion--believe it. To prove their
> dedication to this idea, they have flushed 40 years and roughly $100
> billion (looted from taxpayers, of course!) down an apparently bottomless
> rathole, without a scintilla of success. 
> 
> --Mitchell Jones
> 

Oh, and Phil, one more comment: beware of taking science advice from
folks on the Internet. It is quite possible that they don't know
what they are talking about, and may also spin hyperbolic lies in order to 
grind some personal axe. Mitchell Jones provides a good example of
this above. His one testable claim, the $100 billion dollar figure, is 
too large by a factor of about 5 (The US has spent around $10 billion,
over 35 years; if you adjust into todays dollars, _maybe_ that would 
total $50 billion, 1995). And his claim that there is not
one scintilla of success is laughable. Perhaps he could explain how the
evil DOE scientists have fooled congress and DOE officials into 
continuing funding for 35 years, while, meanwhile in the labs, 
they were not accomplishing anything at all....


If anything, the reason fusion is in trouble now is because of making 
too much progress...the limitations of the Tokamak have become too clear
now that the technology is fairly well developed.


--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Date: 26 Jun 1995 06:02:03 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <3skndi$k3g@news.ccit.arizona.edu> frank@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu  
(Frank Manning) writes:

> In 1847, Ignaz Semmelweis got the idea that the washing of hands in a
> solution of chlorinated lime would cut down on diseases spread by medical
> teachers and students in hospitals. After the change in procedure,
> fatalities from puerperal fever in one Vienna hospital fell from 12% to 1%.
> Even so, his theory aroused fierce opposition from entrenched authority,
> and his career suffered badly.
> 
> -- Frank Manning
> 

..for awhile. As I recall, it caught on quite soon enough---because
it was so easy to demonstrate the effectiveness---and he lived to be
a recognized hero.


--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.06.26 / Barry Merriman /  Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
     
Originally-From: barry@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: URGENT: Physics Support Still Needed
Date: 26 Jun 1995 06:09:47 GMT
Organization: UCSD SOE

In article <5eyfuvC.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> Charles Cagle <singtech@teleport.com> writes:
>  
> >I urge everyone interested in progress in this area to support the 
> >immediate firing of all WELFARE QUEENS IN WHITE COATES associated with 
> >DOE and PPPL et al.  Support the cut and private enterprise will have a 
> >solution in a year.
>  
> Amen!
>  
> - Jed

One year, eh...your sure thats not just a _tiny_ exageration.
(No, I know, Griggs et al have already solved all our energy problems...)

By the way, Mr. Cagle---why don't you enlighten us with some 
hard information about your own ideas. Supposedly you know how
to circumvent the coulomb barrier and all manner of other miracles.
Would you care to post some references to the experiments that have  
demonstrated this?

The may or may not be welfare queens in white coats, but I suggest
there most certainly are crackpots who think they have solved
all the worlds problems when in fact they have solved none...



--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmerriman@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Jun 26 04:37:03 EDT 1995
------------------------------
